Disqus - Latest Comments for Ejao

Re: DOJ Sues Melania's Ex-Adviser

Ejao — Wed, 14 Oct 2020 21:22:52 -0000

I think the word is "grateful" to not be loved by trump. Trump is not capable of loving anyone but himself. Who would want to be loved by a serial liar who continually lies in the sight of God without any conviction that lying is an abomination to God? Who would want to be loved, much less jealous of trump, who continually denies and violates God's Commandment of "Love thy neighbor as thyself" by his bigoted and hateful comments against people of color and others not of his ethnicity? Who would want to be loved by trump with his hateful actions of discrimination, his incitement of those who hate people of color to the point that they have suffered, injury, pain, harassment, and death? Trump's language of incitement shows a lack of belief in law and order. How could anyone want to be loved or value the love of an an evil monster? To some people, trump is regarded as white trash with money, not to consider his wife's past vocation.

Re: DOJ Sues Melania's Ex-Adviser

Ejao — Wed, 14 Oct 2020 21:11:23 -0000

The real loser would be Melania and her liar husband, just by using the DOJ to pursue a personal claim. The NDA contract with Wolkoff is a personal NDA contract that is not enforceable by the DOJ unless classified information was divulged by Wolkoff. A federal court could throw the case out for lack of jurisdiction or cause of action. According to Brad Moss, a national security attorney who said "The case law has been expressly clear for decades that former officials cannot be contractually censored for anything other than classified information." The case law or rules are set up to prevent corruption and are common sense to someone who want to obey the law and who believes in law and order. Apparently, trump, his wife and other corrupt federal officials of DOJ do not follow law and order or do not have the common sense intelligence to understand the rules. Also it is debatable as to whose life is miserable and pathetic..is it Melania who once said she was the most bullied person? Or is it Wolkoff. It's arguable that what was "revealed" in Wolkoff's book was no big revelation to anybody.

Re: DOJ Sues Melania's Ex-Adviser

Ejao — Wed, 14 Oct 2020 20:47:55 -0000

The fact that the NDA is a contract does not make it enforceable by the U.S. DOJ unless classified information was divulged or some rule or regulation of the DOJ was violated. The contract is a personal NDA and is enforceable in a civil court by the personal attorney of Melania trump, not the DOJ. The DOJ has no jurisdiction and Melania has no standing to come to before a federal court on the basis of a personal NDA.

Re: Analysis: James Comey had two options – both were horrible

Ejao — Sun, 30 Oct 2016 09:16:02 -0000

Aaron Blake of the Washington Post is wrong about Comey having two options. Comey had three options. The first option was what he did. He, made a statement of re-opening the investigation based on information (not evidence) from emails found in the laptop of Wiener's ex-wife, Clinton's aide. The second option was to keep his mouth shut, because he did not have clear evidence showing the significance of the information gathered from the emails. He could have waited until he had complete information for the public showing the significance of that information. The third option was to publish the emails themselves, giving the public complete information. He said the public had the right to know, and so why didn't he think the public had the right to have complete information? Why does he not think the public has a right to more complete information NOW? If he had taken this last option, then he could avoid the issue of post-election scandal.

Re: Health Insurance

Ejao — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:22:28 -0000

You don't know anything about banking...the underwriting standards that
allowed banks to engage in mortgages that people could not afford started
with Reagan but were not used on the grand scale until private label
securities were allowed. These securities did not have sound mortgages to
back them up and Greenspan allowed them and lowered interest rates. Bush
did not want to regulate the banks when these mortgages were packed into
securities Greenspan had the authority to stop the banks from engaging in
this type of mortgage debt and failed to do so AND ADMITTED IT AND
APOLOGIZED FOR IT. Securities are always used to back up Freddie, Fannie,
the stock market, regardless of Frank and Dodd. They were issued to
support the conservative banking industry. Frank and Dodd had nothing to
do with it. Now Obama has to regulate the banking industry to stop this.
But I bet that people like you will complain about that. Get your facts
straight and learn about banking industry activities. I audited banks for
nearly 30 years and saw all this happening with republican support.

Re: Health Insurance

Ejao — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:15:00 -0000

but all the republicans voted for it and bush pushed fear to generate
support for a war against a country, Iraq, that did not attack us. The Iraq
war was a republican war and those democrats who voted for it openly
expressed their mistake ...bush never did. bush used the "surplus" to
spend more. Get your facts straight.

Re: Health Insurance

Ejao — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:09:17 -0000

What do you know about Marxism? Where do you get off calling it Marxism when this bill continues your private choices? You don't begin to understand Marxism and that socialism would not allow any private insurance companies and that is not what is happening here. Examples of traitors to this country are health insurance companies that don't want to provide decent health coverage for American citizens...that is why this whole issue has come up. Traitors are pharmaceuticals who are not willing to provide drugs a reasonable costs to American citizens and yet they do provide drugs at reasonable costs to citizens of other countries, because our government has been to soft to negotiate with the drug companies...does this sound like a Marxist government. Do you get it? Traitors are the banking industry that extended worthless mortgages based on their greed and nearly caused our capitalism to SELF-DESTRUCT so that now the Obama administration had to spend more to PRESERVE OUR CAPITALISM. Does this sound like Marxism? Do you get it? Now regulation is need to preserve a balanced, moderate, healthy capitalism.

Re: Health Insurance

Ejao — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:01:28 -0000

What makes you think your health care will be socialized? You will still have your private choices. No body, nowhere has talked about changing health care to one vast government option...it is a mix of options, more than 90% private. The argument about socializing is based on fear instead of thinking. Yes, it would have been good to control spending SO THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO SPEND ON THE IRAQ WAR FROM 2003. Did you oppose spending on this war? When Bush entered into office, he had a surplus and now that he left we have huge debt and no choice about spending more to just stabilize things. Republican have overspent on their pet projects, war.

Re: Health Insurance

Ejao — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:54:40 -0000

Does HR3200 require that private health insurers provide regular benefits to thoses who opt out of Part B of Medicare? I am a federal retiree/annuitant who opted out of Part B when I turned 65 and before that I called Blue Cross Blue Shield to ask them if they would provide regular benefits as stated in their plan. I did not mind paying my deductibles and co-pays. Blue Cross Blue Shield told me they would pay the regular benefits and so when I submitted a bill to them for reimbursement under their plan, they reimbursed me less than 1/3of my bill. They said that under 5 USC 8904 (B), they were REQUIRED to base their payment on the Medicare schedule or the Provider's charge WHICHEVER IS LESS! My question is this: Does HR3200 change this and require private health insurance companies to reimburse according to their stated plans federal retiree/annuitants who opt out of Part B? If private insurance companies are opposed to the public option then why does not the federal government require them to pay according to their private plans...the full coverage stated in their private plans? Why did the federal government allow the private insurers to reduce their costs and our coverage when we are paying for private insurance? In other words, seniors end up paying more for health care costs because the government gave private insurance companies permission to do this? Once I turned 65, my insurance coverage dropped with the blessing of the government. I don't have to, after 35 years, go looking for a new provider who may not know how to treat me just because the provider participates in Part B. If HR2300 does not change this, then it should: it should require private health insurers to give full coverage under their plans to everyone who opts out of Part B, especially since these insurers oppose a public option...they should provide full private coverage.

Does HR3200 require the government to negotiate Part D drug costs with the pharmaceuticals? Why do Canadians and Europeans get a break for their drug costs and we don't? Why do we have to act like sheep in negotiating our drug costs and other countries do not?